Tequila
-
Posts
3072 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tequila
-
-
i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA?
I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log?
perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas
can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine?
i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations
no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business?
Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?
.
-
Y our GPS doesn't support field notes?
The 60CSx, arguably the best GPS Garmin ever made, does not support field notes. It is the precursor to the Colorado/Oregon which introduced "paperless caching".
Each waypoint in the 60CSx has a "memo" field that holds about 20-30 characters but you would drive yourself nuts using the toggle for data entry.
.
-
why does Netherlands have every imaginable flower but not one single tulip?
Time for you to get new glasses.
I count four vases of tulips. AND the stand has a tulip pattern. LOL
.
Actually five vases of tulips.
.
-
why does Netherlands have every imaginable flower but not one single tulip?
Time for you to get new glasses.
I count four vases of tulips. AND the stand has a tulip pattern. LOL
.
-
The second question is related to the original, and presented by the OP themselves. It's up them if it's on topic for the thread. Don't derail it.
This is a very interesting statement.
When this thread was started, and answered 13 minutes later, I wondered why it was ever started. In less that 2 minutes the OP could have gotten the answer to the posed question by a quick search of the Guidelines. No need for a forum thread.
When the second "question" was posed, it became apparent that the purpose of the thread was probably not fully stated in the original question.
It has been repeatedly suggested that the OP directly contact either the Reviewer(s) or Groundspeak and ask for clarification. I don't recall seeing a post here indicating she has done that.
I think most, but not all, would agree she is not going to get an answer from the Reviewers or Groundspeak in this thread.
I also think most, but not all, would agree that this thread is no longer going to serve any positive purpose.
.
.
-
Probably much to the disappointment of Packers fans,
, Wisconsin is not in Canada. You will have better luck posting in the appropriate US Regional forum.
.
-
And I won't be deleting her post. Water off a ducks back...
I think you are doing the right thing and are being a big person here.
A BIG +1.
There is nothing to be gained by deleting their log other than propagating hard feelings.
You are taking the high road. A good way to start the new year.
.
-
..... I still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way
On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.
.
-
.....I can't read people's minds .........
That is probably a good thing.
.
-
Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions.
..
I'm sure we can find more.
Keith makes a good point though - what is the goal of the complaint? To gain an exemption from the rule guideline because someone else "got away with it". Hardly seems fair to me. Pointing out the others who "got away with it" surely doesn't increase the enjoyment of the game for the players, the other cache owners, or the reviewers. It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation.
It does help satisfy one's insatiable need to find something about Groundspeak to complain about; should one suffer from that affliction.
.
-
Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions.
..
-
Indeed.
As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time.
It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival.
However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified.
Since you seem to be the most interested in resurrecting the cache, perhaps you should go do a maintenance check on it for the CO.
Before someone else creates a new listing and this merr-go-round starts up all over again.
.
-
-
I think this is all the discussion that needs to be had.
Geocaches in the state of Arkansas:
GC.com: 10998 (well, 10999...I have one pending review)
OC.com: 39
Number of caches that are cross posted: 34
Original caches on OC.com in Arkansas: 5
I hope someone down there got a free GPS for putting out those 5.
.
-
I repeat: His observations match up pretty darned well with my own.
I would say they mesh with mine as well. And for full disclosure, I am about as far from being a VR as you can get.
.
-
I think it's unfortunate that the 3 "hottest" topics this year in the Canadian forums amounted to:
1. I feel I am entitled to mention a store name on my cache listing as my FTF prize.
2. I feel one cache is more important than the thousands that have come before it and therefore feel, because of the perceived historiocity of that cache, it should be entitled to the spot that someone else now wishes to use for any purpose whatsoever, even though that goes against an established VR protocol of spot reservation that may have benefitted me in the past.
3. I feel I am entitled to mention on a cache listing that a charity stands to benefit from any excess toys brought by attendees since giving to charity is inherently good and I've always been able to do so in the past. Further, I have a beef with anyone else using my listing description to further the comeraderie of the game.
In this country, and many others around the world, we have more pressing issues that affect this game which should garner our attention, but because they don't tend to affect one person solely, we conveniently ignore them. We tend to draw arbitrary lines in the sand which say "I'm OK with that, but not with this" and then debate the merits of those points as though we are somehow "owed" something because we play the game and may or may not pay a menial subscription fee that allows us to enjoy the game more completely.
As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above?
The lines in the sand many folks continue to draw while sweating the petty details about this game reek of petulance and entitlement and stunt the game more than any VR has ever done by following established guidelines.
Can you hear the applause all the way from Markham????
.
-
As the holiday season approaches and another year of caching comes to an end, this is an excellent time to wish the volunteer reviewers a happy and peaceful holiday. And thank you for giving so much to this sport. Every minute you spend reviewing is a minute you lost to getting out and caching.
THANK YOU AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.
.
-
Here is a link to the Groundspeak Help Centre, specifically the "Instant Notifications - Chasing First to Finds" item.
This site feature allows you to create custom notifications to send to any email address you choose - even your email-enabled mobile phone.
You will be alerted immediately when a new cache is published in your area.
We can't promise that you will be first to find (some people just don't sleep) but it will make chasing the goal easier."
This existing feature of Geocaching.com will allow you to check the timestamps of "Published" e-mails should you wish to determine which Reviewer has insomnia when a cache is published.
Works great. One caveat: Make sure you set up a notification for each cache type. Wherigo's and Letterboxes are infrequent and it is easy to think you have everything working, only to miss the odd chance at a rarer cache type.
.
-
Ah, community camaraderie!
and angst!!!!
.
-
GC should put a big, red, bold note at the top of the Guidelines "the interpretation of this guidelines are at the discretion of GC and the reviewers, which may result in different outcomes on different parts of the world"
And you should capitalize your sentences. But I doubt that is gonna happen either.
.
-
Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?
I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.
It wasn't a statement -- it was a question.
The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.
If there is concern regarding the reviewer's time, then my suggestion will actually help. Typing the the time instead of "Published" will reduce each log entry's keystrokes to 55% of what they were before.
Not asking for flowery -- just hh:mm -- that's all. And it is a request, not an expectation.
My work email confidentiality disclaimer is a haiku:
Email not for you?
Inform us then disregard
Delete forever.
Did your 55% allow for the time required to look at the clock to get the correct time? ")
.
-
Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?
I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.
The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.
Edit: for emphasis.
My sentiments exactly. Let them concentrate on reviewing, and if there's something to be added, like a timestamp, that should be automatic. We're talking about posting a log - adding an entry to an online database ... remembering to tack the time on the end is precisely the sort of task humankind invented computers for in the first place.
I certainly don't require a detailed "published" log from the reviewer, giving me an attaboy for my listing. The attaboy is the job of the FTF
+1. I gave up worrying about FTF's a long time ago. So I am probably a bit biased but I agreed with my two esteemed friends (and viewers of Seinfeld) that the VR's time is better spent on reviewing.
.
-
Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification.
Hence the term "leading". It was not implied nor written. There was no 'certainty' in the first place. No one said, nor implied as far as I can tell, that they would rather have the event canceled at the expense of children's enjoyment than change the listing text.
You are the first person that delineates a difference between the "event" and the "event listing".
If the CO intends to hold the "event" regardless of whether the "event listing" is ever published on gc.com, then I withdraw my question.
I am trying to ascertain what is more important. The actual event or listing the event with the "charity statement" included.
If the CO is having the event regardless, my question is answered.
I haven't seen any indication this is the case.
.
-
more mis-reading...
That's not what I read t4e saying. In this context, the only thing happening is the event being archived due to "to a local charity" being in the description - not canceled.
But we haven't heard if the event itself will be canceled. I'd be surprised if it were.
Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification.
.
, Wisconsin is not in Canada. 
Would you log this cache?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
That is not the question I asked.
Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?
.